On 9/22/21 3:14 PM, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
I only can do manual testing here :(
What is manual testing?
IMO these changes (if we will be able to do them) worth to be done
what is IMO ?
Why I raise some old design issues: we can do changes now and let the API unchanged for another several years :)))
What is several years ;-)
On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 19:09, Ali Alhaidary <ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org <mailto:ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org>> wrote:The issue here is that, It is a lot of work, and, a lot of testing that follows. We are not a direct API users, however, moodle plugin is. Along the road, things could break in such change. So, if you see this change is the the way forward, I am in with as usual a dedicated production server for selected teaches/students as long as the old work (mainly recordings) is not lost, and, only one environment is used (as is now), i.e. moodle plugin can handle all the communication. The issue is being discussed by only three people, how many others are using these APIs ? How many apps are up and running on them now ? looking at the moodle plugin downloads, https://moodle.org/plugins/mod_openmeetings/stats <https://moodle.org/plugins/mod_openmeetings/stats> there is a peak during the past year, and I am sure the case is the same with other LMS and custom built apps, keeping in mind that OM can work exceptional good by itself. Ali On 9/22/21 2:16 PM, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:These changes are only being discussed Nothing is broken, yet :)))) we can @Deprecate these old methods and/or move it to some prefixed URL so API users will need to change base URL from https://localhost:5443/openmeetings <https://localhost:5443/openmeetings> to https://localhost:5443/openmeetings/v1 <https://localhost:5443/openmeetings/v1> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 13:14, seba.wag...@gmail.com <mailto:seba.wag...@gmail.com> <seba.wag...@gmail.com <mailto:seba.wag...@gmail.com>> wrote: @Ali Alhaidary <mailto:ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org> The other alternative to fix the issue AND make it backwards compatible would be to have a /v2 version of the API So all endpoints would be duplicated to have version /v2 of the API (with maybe some other fixes) and the current API stays the same. But would not receive any improvements anymore/deprecated. But that would be quite a bit of work. But yeah, that is what people do when they want to avoid breaking changes. Need to do versioning. Thanks Seb Sebastian Wagner Director Arrakeen Solutions, OM-Hosting.com http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/ <http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/> https://om-hosting.com <https://om-hosting.com> - Cloud & Server Hosting for HTML5 Video-Conferencing OpenMeetings <https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/da4e8828-743d-4968-af6f-49033f10d60a/public_url><https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/b7e709c6-aa87-4b02-9faf-099038475e36/public_url> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 18:10, Ali Alhaidary <ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org <mailto:ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org>> wrote: We are using OM in production with moodle front end, we can not tolerate downtime neither with OM or its plugin (that needs fixing, but living with), and to tell you the truth, I do not see it as 'broken' from that angle. So my answer is B. Ali On 9/22/21 2:10 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com <mailto:seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote:It is broken. The problem is the fix will be a breaking change that will require 3rd party integration code to be fixed. Not a big fix, but a fix. Eg the Moodle Plugin requires some minor changes. The workaround is to write some additional wrapper code to make it backwards compatible. Which is also a bit confusing. I also don't understand quite if you answer is pro or contra changing the response. So is your statement: A) Yes, lets fix it to align our JSON response with what the schema/method signature says. We don't like wrapper objects. And I am happy that people have to change their integration code to use newer versions of OpenMeetings. B) No, lets leave it like this for now and we do whatever other additional code we need to write to workaround so that our documentation and schema matches what the actual API responses look like If you could please clarify if you are A, B. Or if you don't mind either way/no strong opinion :) Thanks Seb Sebastian Wagner Director Arrakeen Solutions, OM-Hosting.com http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/ <http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/> https://om-hosting.com <https://om-hosting.com> - Cloud & Server Hosting for HTML5 Video-Conferencing OpenMeetings <https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/da4e8828-743d-4968-af6f-49033f10d60a/public_url><https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/b7e709c6-aa87-4b02-9faf-099038475e36/public_url> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 10:59, Ali Alhaidary <ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org <mailto:ali.alhaid...@the5stars.org>> wrote: Hi, We have an old saying 'If it is not broken, do not fix it' ;-) Ali On 9/22/21 12:46 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com <mailto:seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, as discussed in the comments section in https://github.com/apache/openmeetings/commit/4daf7c1f53738cd786dc976114cc5278b4f05f4f#comments <https://github.com/apache/openmeetings/commit/4daf7c1f53738cd786dc976114cc5278b4f05f4f#comments> we would like to propose a breaking change for the OpenMeetings Json/Rest API in v7.0.0 Problem: JSON response wrapping Currently CXF-RS is configured to wrap the JSON response into another object. Example: Method signature: public List<AppointmentDTO> range(...) { ... } (Example taken from https://github.com/apache/openmeetings/blob/master/openmeetings-webservice/src/main/java/org/apache/openmeetings/webservice/CalendarWebService.java#L111 <https://github.com/apache/openmeetings/blob/master/openmeetings-webservice/src/main/java/org/apache/openmeetings/webservice/CalendarWebService.java#L111>) OLD/CURRENT JSON Response: { "appointmentDTO": [ { itemXYZ: 123, ... } ] } Proposed NEW/UPDATED JSON Response: // no wrapping object around it, just return list [ { itemXYZ: 123, ... } ] Reasoning: The wrapping "{ "appointmentDTO": ... }" should be dropped from the json response body. "appointmentDTO" is generated but it is not in any schema definition or method signature. Cause there is nothing in the method signature that would tell anybody where " "appointmentDTO": [" is coming from. Other than by testing the API call and finding out by try and error. CXF-RS allows configuring our Web Service to NOT generate that wrapping element. And turn this behaviour off and just generate the list. See "dropRootName" in the CXF docs at: https://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-data-bindings.html#JAXRSDataBindings-WrappingandUnwrappingJSONsequences <https://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-data-bindings.html#JAXRSDataBindings-WrappingandUnwrappingJSONsequences> *This affects all methods returning a JSON response body (which is pretty much every API Method)* Please reply to this email if you have concerns, questions or objections. Thanks! Seb Sebastian Wagner Director Arrakeen Solutions, OM-Hosting.com http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/ <http://arrakeen-solutions.co.nz/> https://om-hosting.com <https://om-hosting.com> - Cloud & Server Hosting for HTML5 Video-Conferencing OpenMeetings <https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/da4e8828-743d-4968-af6f-49033f10d60a/public_url><https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/b7e709c6-aa87-4b02-9faf-099038475e36/public_url>-- Best regards,Maxim-- Best regards, Maxim
